Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> writes:
> On 22/10/2019 13.39, Alex Bennée wrote: >> >> Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> writes: >> >>> On 22/10/2019 09.21, Thomas Huth wrote: >>>> As discussed here: >>>> >>>> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2019-10/msg00697.html >>>> >>>> and here: >>>> >>>> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2019-10/msg01388.html >>>> >>>> it would be good to have some more valuable iotests enabled in the >>>> "auto" group to get better iotest coverage during "make check". >>>> >>>> And once Max' "iotests: Add and use $SOCK_DIR" patch series has been >>>> merged, we can indeed enable these Python-based tests, too. >>> >>> Oh well, some Travis jobs are now running too long and hit the 50 >>> minutes limit: >>> >>> https://travis-ci.com/huth/qemu/jobs/248158477 >>> >>> ... so we either might need to remove some other iotests from the "auto" >>> group again, or change the Travis jobs to include less targets... >>> >>> That "clang + sanitizer" job was already running 45 minutes before my >>> change, so it was already close to the limit. So I'd suggest to change >>> it to include less targets. Opinions? >> >> Which one is clang with sanitizers? I think we only build softmmu for >> gcc + sanitizer at the moment. > > I meant this one here: > > - env: > - CONFIG="--target-list=${MAIN_SOFTMMU_TARGETS} " > compiler: clang > before_script: > - ./configure ${CONFIG} --extra-cflags="-fsanitize=undefined > -Werror" || { cat config.log && exit 1; } Hmm we already only do the main SOFTMMU targets. I wonder if we could be caching better? > > Thomas -- Alex Bennée